Talk:Kylie Minogue/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Conquering America

I've removed the passage "Ever since The Beatles' success it had been a goal of British producers to 'crack America', something they appeared to have finally done with Kylie," because frankly it makes it sound as if no British-based artist between The Beatles and Kylie did anything in the US. The fact that she herself is Australian and not British makes the sentence all the more irrelevant. Angmering 18:38, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• There are a few passages that need rewording and/or removing in line with some of the criticisms this article has received, and I think that was one piece that needed to go. Rossrs 00:19, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • Besides, Minogue has hardly "cracked America". She is, at best, a minor star in the US. MK2 19:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

fairy

Maybe you should add a blurb about her appearance as the green fairy in Moulin Rouge

the Absinthe fairy, in fact, I think

Exactement, la fée verte. I don't think there's much more to say than that, though. Surely she's had bigger, more relevant roles. --Brion

Not in a movie. Moulin Rogue was an international hit. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:31, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Minogue was won a grammy and has now been nominated for another. I believe that is enough for an artist to "crack" the market?

country?

"....who has been based in the United Kingdom for nearly a decade"

Doesn't she live in France?

In her free time she lives all over the world, but when she's recording she does her thing in the UK Dmn 16:20, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

She owns a house in London. As for residing in France, I'm pretty sure that's the case, but only since she became involved with Olivier Martinez. Rossrs, 23 Apr 2004

Suggestions

For a feature article, I think this has some imperfections and omissions:

• The image layout isn't nice on mozilla (labels not centred, poor gutters). I can fix this, but it would be better if the images in question were bigger (and the new thumbnail syntax were used). I understand that all the images were hard to come by, so if these are the best we can get then drop me a message and I'll fix the image markup.
• Didn't Hutchence have a significant imact on Kylie's career. I believe I saw (on some tv show) that he did more than just encourage her to change her image - didn't he also encourage her to change her style of music, and to dump Waterman?
• The structure seems a bit haphazard. Perhaps moving the three sections that describe her acting career ("early life", "neighbours", "film career") into a single "acting career" section with those three as subsections.
• I hate to say it, but I must. The article really underplays sexual aspect of Kylie's image and career. Everything from the "I can see your nipples" stuff, through the media's obsession with her bottom, to the enormous volume of posters and calendars she sells (the article touches on these, but I fear not to a representative degree). Perhaps this stuff could go into a section inside "celebrity status"). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:20, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

excellent points. The images I don't really have an opinion on, and I think Hutchence deserves greater credit as an influence on her. Problem is, I don't know what is fact and what is fiction in the things I've read about them. Great quote from Hutchence though I read in an interview. Said his favourite hobby was "corrupting Kylie". I think Hutchence came into the picture about a year or so after Kylie began rebelling against the "girl next door" image she was stuck with, and it was precisely this rebellion that he found interesting, so exactly what his influence was..... don't know. Confidence, affirmation, perhaps?

• The structure - it does seem to me to be haphazard. I've thought about it before but I haven't been able to think of a way of tying it together coherenty. It does seem to skip around from point to point - I think what it really needs is to start at the beginning and make the sequence more chronological within certain sections. The difficulty is that in seperating for example the music and the acting careers, it would lose even more coherence. She's in the unusual position of being someone who's entry into music was opportunistic based on her success as an actress. Oddly her subsequent forays into acting have been opportunistic based on her success as a singer. I can't think of any other artist with this particular situation and it just makes it hard to write about. Perhaps that in itself is worthy of comment.
• Her sexuality - absolutely positively correct. I think what a lot of people miss is that Kylie has now, and always has had seperate "careers" running concurrently. ie 1: a singer, 2: a celebrity, 3: a sex object (for want of a better term). I see the three as related of course, but also very seperate in terms of how to write about them. The acting, the lingerie range, etc are really peripheral to what she's all about. They are by no means at the core.
• Another point - in Australia probably more than in the UK, as she gains maturity she is actually becoming an influential person outside of her particular arena. In the UK she was used to promote tourism, and one of the airlines paid her millions for an endorsement, that's more than just a pop star kind of thing. She's always been a huge supporter of the gay community, has been active in AIDS issues as long as she's been a celebrity, has been a front person for a major paper recycling project in Oz, and is also the spokesperson for another action group that is raising awareness against domestic violence, particularly towards children. There's more, but you get the picture I'm sure. The fact that she is chosen for these roles, and more importantly accepted in them, says something about her "significance", that the article does not really even touch on. Rossrs 23 Apr 2004

• We have to add that "corrupting Kylie" quote - it's golden :) I'm with you 100% on the "three kylies" - and we're lucky (from a structural perspective) and the three don't really mix much - I think we can structure the article into those three parts and not lose anything in the process. And the "gay icon/activist" Kylie stuff should go in too. Lastly, I think I heard that she models her career after Madonna (with the sexy image and the constant reinvention of her sound and image) but I don't know if this is true, or if it's significant enough to mention. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:54, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• • have duly added Hutchence's quote which I'm glad you like, because it has always amused me :) The other stuff is going to take a bit more effort. About Madonna. Yes, I've heard the same thing. There was one point early on where she did a live tour in the UK complete with corsettes etc and she was all but crucified by the press. Saying she was copying Madonna so blatantly and how dare she think she's sexy. Ironic really considering it's become her stock-in-trade. I don't think the article needs to go into it in any more detail, especially seeing as it's mainly conjecture. Rossrs.

With all due respect, that bit about what Kylie Minogue is about is hogwash. That's your POV, noone can really know what she's all about. IMO she's using marketing a sex appeal to get what she wants. That is all she's about. She now wants some cred, and is getting it, but I question her motives. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:35, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• You may be right. Anything written about any kind of of celebrity is somewhat POV, and of course the motives have to be questioned. On the other hand, what's been included in the article is consistent with what Minogue has said about herself, and what journalists have written about her, and that's all we have to work with, isn't it? Rossrs 02:19, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"national treasure"

I've reinstated the phrase "national treasure" but have this time italicised it. This is a particularly Australian idiom, and is distinct from the term "icon". Australia has an official list of "national treasures" - it's just a phrase that is very meaningful in Australia, and highly applicable to Minogue. Rossrs

It's also a quite a popular phrase in the UK, where Kylie Minogue is also a national treasure, albeit that she is Australian. Along with Björk, Rolf Harris and Terry Gilliam she is seen as an honorary Brit. The news of her breast cancer is on most of the front pages this morning, sharing space with George Galloway, although for different reasons.-Ashley Pomeroy 10:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Featured article potential

The Kylie Minogue article has recently been nominated three times for use as a featured article, and three times been contested. In it's present format it's never going to considered, therefore nominating it further would be a waste of time.

My question is : Should the article be -

a. left in it's current format and allowed to continue to grow as it has in the past? OR

b. ruthlessly but fairly edited to the point that it conforms to the standard of a potential featured article, using highly regarded celebrity articles such as Ian McKellan as a guide to style and content?

The comments made in contesting it are fair I think. Problem 1 - the photo copyright issue - at least that one is a clear cut issue.

The other comments relating to the lack of critical assessment in the article - perfectly fair. "Reads like a hagiography. Wikepedia is not a fanzine" - a brusque assessment, but well founded. Upon reflection, I like the site, but it does have a fanzine quality to it - which I also like - but I think honestly this is not really the place for that. Let's face it, this is one person that has numerous poorly constructed, heavily biased fansites dedicated to her. Perhaps this is one venue in which a more balanced article could exist, complete with relevant criticism, and a sense of proportion. By sense of proportion, I mean that in relation to truly significant figures such as Nelson Mandela, or Mother Theresa or....... whoever... Joan of Arc etc , the Minogue article appears unnecessarily grandiose. It's exactly the sort of article I'd create if I was sad enough to have my own fansite ;-), but I don't, I won't, and this is not the most appropriate venue. I'm perfectly willing to go through the article and cull the trivia, retain the facts and significant sections. However I'm aware that because a large number of people have contributed snippets of information over a period of time, as well as some people who have obviously spent a large amount of time working on the article, for someone like me to come along and go through the article with a chainsaw is going to cause offence. I've contributed a lot of the trivia that I'm thinking should be culled, but before I contemplate anything drastic, I'd really appreciate any comments, opinions, suggestions... thanks. If my comments seem like a radical change of opinion in light of the fact that I made the most recent nomination, it's just that I take the opposing comments as constructive criticism, and can see the validity of the viewpoints. So that's my bit - over to anyone who wants to have their say. Rossrs 10:16, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hola.

Don't cull the trivia (assuming it's interesting/amusing). Move it to a trivia section à la Madonna, Britney, Tori Amos &c.

chocolateboy 10:55, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, don't cull the trivia, I like Chocolateboy's suggestion. I think it would be wise to put some criticism here and there, if it means featured article status. As hard as it may be to think of some, she must have done some things that are worthy of criticism. Earl Andrew 16:29, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

oh there's been criticism. That won't be hard to address at all! thanks Earl. Rossrs 21:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edit / rewrite of 19 July

After reading and agreeing with a lot of criticisms about this article I have followed the instruction to be bold and have edited. If this annoys anyone who liked the article as it was, feel free to revert it, however this is what I’ve done, and my reasons.

I’ve removed the superlatives except where I think they are genuinely required and tried to tone down the POV, and have also inserted the critical viewpoints that have been voiced during her career. Overall I think the article is now more factual and balanced. I have condensed a lot of the info that relates to specific albums – these points can be added into the album articles if necessary & I will go back over those and update them. I have tried to provide a logical chronology using the albums as the structure for this, and have deleted or merged a few paragraphs that were repetitive.

I’ve retained the seperate comments about “SexKylie” simply because I think they’re relevant, and because her image is something that has attracted comment in a way that seems to me to often be independent of what she is actually doing as a singer. I’ve added a trivia section, so as not to totally remove various unrelated snippets that some people find interesting, but have placed it near the end of the article so anyone who wants to skip that section, can easily do so. I’ve also created a table as suggested for the singles discography, once again near the end, out of the way. While I don’t think the table is vital to the article, it does demonstrate very clearly the highs and lows of her career as discussed in the article, as well as what is overall a remarkable achievement for any recording artist. As she is mainly a singles artist, I don't think the same table format is required for her albums, especially as they have their own articles. I don’t think a table is necessary or desirable for every recording artist, but for this one I think it is. I’ve tried to maintain some of the info relating to her impact in Australia, simply because she is Australian. She is also popular in Bulgaria for example, but I’d only mention that in the article if she was Bulgarian.

I’ve retained the images, in the hope that in future they will be replaced with suitable images that are clearly not in violation of copyright.

I don’t by any means think the article is a finished product yet. Rossrs 14:19, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why is this new version of the article so much shorter? Everyking 16:07, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

because there were some points that were repeated, albeit worded differently, but conveying the same information, in the previous article. Some sentences were long and full of padding without actually adding new information to the article. Some points, as I mentioned above belong more correctly in the album articles, and others I have abbreviated and put into the trivia category, so as to keep the article itself unclutterred. In my opinion. Rossrs 22:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Name pronunciation

How is her last name pronounced? That should be in the first sentence of the article.A2Kafir 17:19, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

(pronounced: /mɪn'oʊg/) Gee, glad that's been cleared up, there can surely be no confusion now.

i agree. that tells the average person nothing without further research. can there be a "rhymes with" added -- or instead? also, any pronunciation i've heard has the accent slightly on the "ogue" part. is that what it shows now? not sure. SaltyPig 17:06, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

Rhymes with 'Vogue'. Or 'In Vogue', perhaps. In the UK at least she is generally called "Kylie", as she is semi-officially a kind of camp icon/national treasure.-Ashley Pomeroy 20:21, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "Did It Again" video

I thought the four images of Kylie in the "Did It Again" video were: "Cute Kylie" (one in purple dress), "Indie Kylie" (one in red clothes), "Dance Kylie" (one in multicoloured/rainbow dress) and "Little Mischievous Kylie" (one in blue dress, blonde). Moreover, according to Kylie in an Australia MTV interview in 1998, "Indie Kylie" won, not "Sex Kylie". Transcript of the interview here: http://www.kylie.co.uk/pressroom/00000032.html

After just checking the video itself, I can tell you that no one actually wins. There is a period of time where "Indie Kylie" is the only one standing but "Cute Kylie" confronts her and pulls her down, and then she is in turn pulled down by Little Mischievous Kylie, who is inturn punched by "Dance Kylie" but at the end we see Cute Kylie swinging around a baseball bat while the other two get up. Earl Andrew 00:00, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

good point. Maybe the article needs to just mention the video and not delve into who won, especially because it's suggesting some kind of psychology that may or may not be accurate anyway. Will fix it. Rossrs 09:49, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

You know, all that "trivia" should be merged into the main article! - Ta bu shi da yu 01:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I disagree. This "trivia" is largely non encycopedic. It was edited out of the main article some time ago, because there was a lot of criticism of the article being nothing more than a "fanzine" and being non encycopedic. If you think it should go back into the article go ahead. Maybe if it's played with a bit, it'll work better than it did before.

Rossrs 02:07, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Live performances?

I noticed that Kylie's live shows and tours are hardly mentioned in the article. Anyone else thinks this is quite an omission, as her shows are quite notable for the extravagant (some might say "bombastic") styling, costumes and dancing acts? --Plek 16:05, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I have added information about live performances, and have changed the heading "Recording career" to "Recording and performing career", however if you think this is not covered in sufficient depth, please change it however you see fit. Rossrs 15:06, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like what you've done with the place. Looks good. I'm going to see Kylie's show in Rotterdam in two months, so I'll let you know if your edits are accurate ;-). --Plek 20:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

thank you! I hope you enjoy her in Rotterdam, or anywhere for that matter ;-). I saw her a couple of years ago, and she puts on quite a show Rossrs 01:40, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Punctuation edits

I corrected some misplaced full stops, overgrown ellipses and stuff, but I might have gone a bit overboard with the dashes. I just read in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes)#Dash guidelines for Wikipedia editors that both spaced en-dashes as well as unspaced em-dashes are acceptable on Wikipedia. If someone doesn't like my em-dash mania, please say so and I'll revert them. --Plek 21:16, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where to go from here? (suggestions)

This article has seen extensive edits in the last couple of months, and has definitely become a lot more comprehensive and interesting, in my opinion. However, it has also grown in size and is now 31 kB long. Maybe this is the right moment to discuss where to take this article from here. I'll start by just describing my general feelings about the article, in the hope that it will help create some new ideas.

First of all, I think that the "career" section has become a bit unwieldy and repetitive. There's a lot of good info, but would the general reader still be reading after the fourth or fiifth album description?

I think things start to drag somewhat in this section because too much weight is given to the reviews, critics and magazines. To me, this makes the section more about "what people think of Kylie" than about Kylie herself. Yes, it's interesting to know how her albums were received by the media, and this should definitely be a part of the article. But, I think focusing more on Kylie's motivation behind her recording career choices might make a more captivating story than reading the reviews of her work. Much is in the article already, but I think the balance is a bit off. Snipping some of the reviews might help. In contrast, I find the "Image" section more interesting in that regard.

What I'm getting at is this: a theme I'd like to see fleshed out more is how Kylie effectively evolved from a Stock, Aitken & Waterman drone into a highly successful manager of the "Kylie franchise". To what extent has she gained control over the direction her career is taking (then and now)? What about the collaboration with her writers, choreographers, musicians? Does she write her own music and lyrics? Does she have a fixed team around her and who's responsible for what? Gaining control over one's destiny might prove to be a theme that could make the article more interesting for the reader who isn't necessarily a Kylie fan.

Just my 0.02, of course. --Plek 21:53, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your comments are worth more than 2 cents. OK, then what can we do? Firstly, is the aim to get it to Featured Article status? It's been nominated twice before that I know of, and shot down both times (archive is on this talk page) and it continues to attract criticism such as on Peer Review now. I haven't agreed with all of it, but some of it has been fair, and that's mostly been related to the previous 'fanzine' style of the article and it's lack of criticality. The balance has now gone too far the other way, well ok, we can easily bring it back into line. We need to be careful that the positive and the negative comments are in the correct proportion. Maybe look at other music related FA's Duran Duran (my opinion, good but littered with fanzine style language), Johnny Cash (great style and structure, but I like the idea of Wikipedia aiming to provide the "definitive" article and to me it could have had a bit more depth), The Supremes up for nomination now (I like the article, it's engaging, and as a factual presentation, it's flawless and comprehensive), and then Madonna (which I think has grown into a monster, especially with the just plain awful section near the end that says "Madonna did this, Madonna did that, Madonna did something else. Madonna walked on water. Madonna won 42 Nobel Peace Prizes and 11 Grammies" that sort of overblown stuff. Madonna is successful! Yes I get that!!). None of those four articles are particularly overburdened by criticality in my opinion, yet that did not stop them becoming FA's. Did Madonna deserve the 42 Nobel Peace Prizes? Can she really leap tall buildings in a single bound? I don't know. After reading the article I'm none the wiser. If I had to list the 5 articles in order of quality, I'd put Minogue up in the top 3 with The Supremes and Cash despite the fact that I don't think either of them are perfect.

Yes I think clip the critical comment down a bit. I suggest keep the career in it's current structure with the three key phases, because they are clearly defined, and abbreviate each section. As for criticality, keeping a clear thread going through the article would fulfill the requirement without making it jarring.

The other suggestions - "evolution from SAW drone" - I love that. the word "drone" is so appropriate. what motivates her, etc I think is an interesting angle, and it's a theme that does appear in the other FA articles mentioned to some degree. I think there is a danger of "motivation" and "destiny" and "what is Kylie all about" heading back into POV, so it would need to be sourced and whatever viewpoints are presented should be supported by quotes from Kylie, and from whatever other sources/people. Maybe Kylie is just a sex-pot money-making-machine and that's all she is "about". I don't subscribe to that, but I can't prove it ;-) I think you've hit on something - while any biographical article must follow a particular format, each one is unique because of the person it concerns, so perhaps the key really is a matter of correctly identifying what themes to discuss. This is a good starting point, I think.

Your perception of her in the Netherlands is probably quite different to mine in Australia. It's hard to explain but she has a totally different "meaning" in Australia. I know she's big in Europe, and I was living in the UK when Light Years came out, I've seen how she's treated there, but in Australia it's very different. It's like she's become, from a very unlikely beginning, a part of the national culture in a way nobody could have ever predicted. It's interesting but how to convey that in the article, I don't know.

Please change, snip, chop whatever you think needs fixing. You have my 100% support. I think the article would be well served by you taking a very critical/ruthless look at it. Your ideas sound good to me. I'll still keep working at it also. Rossrs 16:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Argh! This is harder than I thought. There is so much good stuff in there, that it's hard to cut anything without disrupting a whole section. And just cutting a couple of reviews here and there isn't going to do much either; it will still be a very long article afterwards. Hmmm... Decisions, decisions... I think I'm going to brood for a bit to see if anything pops up.

As to the "motivation" theme: yes, obviously this should only be attempted if good sources can be found. Right now I'm thinking about doing some sandbox experimentation: filter out all the album release/review/sales stuff first and see what's left (i.e things she did, thought, said; influences, extra-music experiences, etc.) Then try to expand on that, and if it succeeds, put some condensed version of the album stuff back in. Voila! Yes, I'm rambling, but I hope this makes at least some sense. To be continued. --Plek 21:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another public announcement: most of the external links in "References" are dead. Anyone know what they were supposed to link to? --Plek 21:33, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Major edit of February 20, 2005

Over the past week, users Rossrs (talk · contribs) and Plek (talk · contribs) have been working on this article in sandbox territory. I have now moved the result back here again. Changes we made include:

• A shift in focus: the number of media reviews of the albums was reduced, in favour of more information about Kylie's background, motivation and influences. In general, the article is now more about Kylie herself (as should be the case in a biography), rather than about what other people think of her.
• Expanded "Image and celebrity status" section.
• New images, replacing the redundant album covers. The new images now add context to the article, for instance by providing comparisons between the music videos and the works that inspired them.
• Added music samples of selected singles.
• Rewrite of the intro section to provide a better overview of the article.
• Culling of nonessential trivia.
• Recompiled "References" section, to comply with the Manual of Style.
• General fact checking, copyedit, grammar and punctuation fixes.

We believe the new version provides a more extensive and balanced overview of Kylie's life and work, while still maintaining a neutral point of view; both positive and negative criticism are featured in the article. Enjoy. --Plek 17:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Whoa" © Neo.

NICE work. VERY nice work. Kudos. --b. Touch 16:17, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Brace yourselves

Kylie hits today's featured article status on April 27. -- Earl Andrew - talk 09:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

beautiful article! great work, kylie freaks. SaltyPig 04:49, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

kudos! glad to see this. --Morbid-o 15:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Category?

Does Ms. Minogue really need her own category? That really seems like cluttering up the Wiki name space if persons start having categories named after them...

Hospital

Why isn't there anything on the page about the fact that an entire hospital wing full of (critically) ill patients was cleared out for miss Minogue? Some people visiting their loved ones where even denied access (by security guards working for Minogue) to the room where the patient was, because it was to close to Minogue's link

Superdude99 14:42, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The entire hospital story was just that: a story. Weeks after the story came out, it was revealed (will need to find those links to the stories) that it was not true at all. She only had 2 rooms to herself, not the entire wing.

Revert of 1 Sep

I appreciate that a lot of work may have gone into the large slab of text I've just reverted out of the article. I've reverted it because I thought what was added was not appropriate. If you'd like me to explain what I thought was inappropriate I'd be happy to help. I don't mean to jump onto the person who made the changes, maybe it was just experimenting, which is fine, although Wikipedia:Sandbox is a better place. Rossrs 13:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, you chose to revert, so here goes.
1. Did you read the original article? If so, you will see that almost everything you have added already existed. You have duplicated it all in what is supposed to be the lead paragraph - ie, intended as a summary only.
2. Your text does not follow the same format as the rest of the article. Looking at it, it's glaringly different to the rest of the article. Can you see that it looks very different?
3 Your text does not follow the same style. It refers to her as "Kylie" rather than "Minogue" for example. It contains highly POV (point of view) statements that are not appropriate to an encylopedic article.
4. This is a Wikipedia:Featured Article. While this does not mean it is a holy text and editing is forbidden, some care should be taken. Wholesale edits such as yours are considered inappropriate because the article has already gone through a lengthy process of evaluation and is considered to be of a high standard.
5. Immediately reverting, when I gave you the benefit of the doubt initially, is not acceptable. I intend reverting it back. Please keep your edits within the scope of what I've tried to explain. If you would like to discuss this with me further, please do so, either here or on my talk page, but, please do NOT simply add your text back into the article. Rossrs 14:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's also a copyvio -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:27, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it looked a bit fanzine - well, I was prepared to give the benefit... Finlay, I've reverted twice already so that's my quota for today. Hope you, or some one else will keep an eye on this. Cheers! Rossrs 14:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Technically 3 times is your limit (3RR is the max, 4 reverts being a violation). But I'll revert it if I see it return. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:49, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I thought 3 was the violation. Well, I have one more up my sleeve then! Actually, it's almost 1am here (Australia) and I have a job to go to in the morning.  :-p So I'll leave it in the capable hands of you and the community. Rossrs 14:54, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Did you mean doesn't instead of does in point 4? Dmn € Դմն 16:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that was a pretty bad typo wasn't it? I was extremely fatigued. Rossrs 21:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Fact Checking

Hi, great article on Ms. Minogue, but in looking at the 1987-1992 section, I came upon a factual error. Roy Orbison was mentioned as one of the artists at the John Lennon Tribute concert, where Kylie performed "Help!"

The thing is, Orbison died on Dec. 6, 1988. Either the year of the concert or Mr. Orbison's presence is in error. Please confirm this and update the article as needed.

Well spotted! How strange. The correct date is May 1990 according to several sources including Kylie.com - I've found a few sites that at first glance appear to be suggesting that Minogue, along with U2 and Orbison performed at the concert, but it seems to be referring to a compilation album of Lennon songs, drawn from various concerts including the Liverpool one. The album has 3 versions of "Help" by Minogue, U2 and Orbison - perhaps this is where the confusion began. I can't find anything to place either U2 or Orbison in the same concert as Minogue - even via video, which I thought might have been possible. I'll rewrite that bit and link to one of the sites, probably Kylie.com because it's at least an official site rather than a fansite.

Rossrs 09:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

 Done Please refer to the content for "Achievements"

Third paragraph reads: "Minogue's songs have garned many accolades throughout her career."

Suggested edit - "garned" should be changed to "garnered". garned is not a real word, maybe a typo. tia. 49.197.32.163 (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)